Control of Launchers

Claudia Valeria Nardi, Marc Alomar

5th of February, 2015
Abstract
In this report we synthesize an H controller for a space launcher of the ARIANE 5 class. We only consider
the control of the pitch angle during the atmospheric ascent trajectory, and limit the study to the rigid launcher
model. In the first part, we develop a state-space representation of the launcher, and perform a frequency and
time domain analysis of the system. We conclude that the open-loop system is unstable. In the second part, we
synthesize a robust controller using the H technique. We build the augmented model, and test a first set of
weight functions. The closed-loop system is stable, showing good gain and phase margins. We explore the effect
of changing the weight function parameters, and study the effects on performance and robustness. Finally, the
controller is fine-tuned to get the best compromise between performance and robustness.

Rigid Launcher Model

In this section we build two rigid launcher models: one for the time domain simulation, and one for the H synthesis.
To build a linear, time-independent model, we assume that there is a low variation of mass and inertia, that the
launch vehicule is symmetric and rigid, and that the system is stationary (coefficients are time-independent).

1.1

Time domain simulation model

The state space representation, which describes the launchers dynamics through its angular and lateral movement
about the commanded trajectory, is given by:

0 A6 A3
0
K1

0 B1 K1

1 0

0
0
0
0
0
c

0

d
z = 0 A1 A2

W
0
K2

z + 02 B2 K2
dt
2
R 0 0
0 20 0 0 R 0 0
0
F Z
0 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
R
R

1 0
0
0 0
0
0
0

0
0 0
0
0
0


 0 1
c
0 0

X
1
0
0
0
0
z +
W
y=
=
0 0

0
1 0
0
0

R 0

F Z
0 0
0
0
0 1
0
0
R
0 1 1/VR 0 0
0 1/VR 0
The launcher state vector consists of the pitch angle error, , and its time derivative, the derivative of the
the actual thrust deflection, R , and its time derivative. The output vector, y, contains
lateral position error, z,
the full state vector and the angle of attack . The inputs of the system are the commanded thrust deflection,
c , the wind W, and a thrust deflection offset, F Z . To estimate the fluid consumption of the actuator, we
calculate the deflection integral, C . The numerical values of the state-space model are given below, and we consider
a launchers true airspeed VR = 325.34 m/s.
A1
- 31.6

A2
- 0.0467

A3
0.005

A6
1.631

0
0.63

0
23.9
1

B1
- 0.005

B2
0.0467

K1
- 2.514

K2
- 15.6893

1
Wind (m/s)

AoA (deg)

50
0
50
100

1
0
1

10
0
0

2
t (s)

100
0
100
200

Drift (m/s)

40

C (deg)

50
100

4
Att rate (deg/s)

Defl rate (deg/s)

20

10

50
Att (deg)

Defl (deg)

2
t (s)

20
0
20

Figure 1: Time response of the uncontrolled launcher, under a commanded thrust deflection pulse of 1, 1 s.
Figure 1 shows the response of the uncontrolled launcher to a commanded thrust deflection pulse, of 1 and 1s.
As we can see, the angle of attack diverges: in only 4 seconds the angle of attack has become about - 75, which
is definitely catastrophic. The launcher attitude, its rate and the drift show a similar behavior, meaning that the
launcher is naturally unstable. Therefore, it is necessary to control it to stabilize the system. The poles of the
system show the instability,
Poles

15 18.56 i

- 1.32

0.05

1.23

One of the poles is positive, meaning that the system is unstable. This pole is responsible for the divergence
seen on figure 1.

1.2

Synthesis model

In order to calculate the H controller, we need an appropriate synthesis model. Since we will synthesize a controller
only for the pitch angle, we have to reduce our MIMO representation, discussed before, to a SISO model with c
as the single input, and as output. Therefore, we remove all the disturbances in our synthesis model, and let
one single output.
The transfer function of the SISO model is given by the ratio between the pitch angle error and the commanded
thrust deflection,
G(s) =

1436s 112

= 5
c
s + 30.16s4 + 571s3 22.36s2 929.2s + 46.7

The system is of fifth-order. The Bode diagram of the transfer function G(s) is shown in figure 2.
If we consider the uncontrolled launcher without actuators, the dynamics of the system is described by

 



d
0 A6

=
1 0

dt

which is the equation of an harmonic oscillator, of frequency = A6 = 1.3 rad/s. This relation implies that A6
is positive, meaning that the center of pressure is above the center of gravity. As a consequence, the launcher is
2

Rigid launcher Bode plot

50

Magnitude (dB)

0
50
100
150
200
0

Phase (deg)

45

90

135

180
3
10

10

10

10
Frequency (rad/s)

10

10

10

Figure 2: Bode diagram of the rigid launcher uncontrolled system.

Figure 3: Standard form of the system.

aerodynamically unstable. This expression allows us to identify that the pole - 1.32 describes the natural dynamics
of the system, while the imaginary poles 15 18.56 i describe the actuator dynamics. The actuators are much
faster than the natural system, which is required to control the launcher.

Augmented system

To synthesize an H controller, we have to express the system in the standard form. We choose two exogenous
inputs, which represent the reference attitude, z1 , and the disturbance on the thrust deflection, z2 , which represents
a disturbance on the actuator. The exogenous outputs are the attitude error, z1 , and the actuator command, z2 .
The standard form of the system is shown in figure 3. G represents the dynamics of the launcher, and K is the
controller to synthesize.
The relation between the exogenous inputs and outputs is
z1 = W1

G
1
w1 W1
W3 w2
1 + KG
1 + KG

K
KG
w1 W2
W3 w2
1 + KG
1 + KG
In a matricial form, we can identify the transfer functions Tij ,
z2 = W2

Phase (deg) Magnitude (dB)

1/W2

50
0
50
90

Phase (deg)

Magnitude (dB)

1/W1

45
0

10

10
Frequency (rad/s)

10

24
22
20
1
0
1
0
10

10
Frequency (rad/s)

Magnitude (dB)

1/W2W3

50
0

45
0

25.0362
25.0362
25.0362
1
Phase (deg)

50
90

Phase (deg)

Magnitude (dB)

1/W1W3

10

10
Frequency (rad/s)

10

0
1
0
10

10
Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 4: Bode diagram of the filters. These functions bound the transfer functions of the system.

z1
z2


=

T11
T21

T12
T22



w1
w2

which relate the exogenous inputs and outputs. The H controller will minimize these transfer functions. More
precisely, the algorithm will solve the sub-optimal H problem: it will ensure that the H norm of the transfer
functions Tij (in the one dimensional case, the maximum) is smaller than the constant . As we will see in the next
section, the filters allow us to shape the transfer functions in different frequency domains.
Now, lets take a look to the weight functions. We consider the following expressions
W1 = k 1
k1
0.33

s + a1
,
s + b1
a1
3.14

W 2 = k2
b1
0.0628

s + a2
,
s + b2

k2
0.08

a2
22

W 3 = k3
b2
22

k3
0.7

The functions W1 and W2 are first order filters, whereas W3 is a constant. As we will see in the next section,
the inverse of these functions will bound the transfer functions Tij . Figure 4 shows the four inverse filters 1/W1 ,
1/W2 , 1/W1 W3 , and 1/W2 W3 . The transfer function 1/W1 is a high-pass filter, with a magnitude of MLF = 0.061
at low frequencies and MHF = 3.03 at high frequencies. In the middle range, the gain increases linearly, as well as
the phase. The cutoff frequency is 3dB = 1.04 rad/s. The function 1/W2 is constant because of the choice of the
parameters, a2 = b2 . However, if a2 > b2 the function will be similar to 1/W1 . On the contrary, if a2 < b2 the filter
will be low-pass.

Figure 5: (Left) Bode plot of the synthesized controller. (Right) Magnitude of the different transfer functions, with
respect to the weights W .

3
3.1

First H Controller Synthesis

H controller synthesis

We have used the augmented model to synthesize the H controller. At the end of the iteration, the value of is
1.09. The controller is of 7th order, with the following poles,
Poles

- 126

- 22

- 13.9 i 19.1

- 10.6

- 0.078

- 0.063

It is not difficult to understand why the controller is of 7th order. We have two filters of 1st order, and a system
of 5th order, which leads to a controller of 7th order altogether. All the poles are negative, which guarantees that
the system is now stable. As we can see on figure 5, the controller is a low-pass filter of bandwidth 2000 rad/s
(frequency at - 3 dB), which also attenuates the system at 1 rad/s. Notice that this frequency corresponds to the
natural frequency of the launcher: the controller avoids exciting this mode. It is interesting to examine the Bode
plots of the transfer functions S, KS, GS, and T (fig. 5). In all cases, the magnitude is bounded by the filter
Wi , and the following expressions are satisfied, which are a consequence of the previous analysis of the transfer
functions,

|S|
/W1

|KS| /W
2

|GS|

/W
1 W3

|T |
/W2 W3
These expressions show the interest of H control: thanks to the weight functions Wi , we can shape the
closed-loop transfer functions of the system. This technique is in contrast with the classical frequential and modal
approach, where we can just place the poles of the system. The difficulty of H control resides in choosing the
appropriate weights. The choice requires a good understanding of the relation between closed-loop transfer functions
and performance - robustness criteria.
Lets consider the first Bode plot, which represents the sensitivity function as compared to /W1 (fig. 5, left).
The H algorithm ensures that the modulus of S is smaller than /W1 , for any frequency, and we can see that
this relation is satisfied. By choosing an appropriate weight function, we can shape the closed-loop transfer function
S. The shape of the filter depends on the performance objectives. In this case, the sensitivity function relates the
5

Figure 6: Bode plot (left) and Nichols plot (right) of the controller rigid launcher, compared to the plant.
commanded attitude, r, with respect to the error. In general we are interested in a low steady-state error, which
justifies the choice of a high-pass filter. It is interesting to see that, at high frequencies, the controller doesnt play
any role on the sensitivity function. Since G 0, S 1, for any K. In this case, S 1 when > 20 rad/s.
The behavior of S at mid-frequencies requires some attention. In the range 1.2 < < 20 rad/s, the sensitivity
is higher than one (i.e. |S| > 0 dB). The sensitivity function also relates the measurement noise and the output:
when |S| < 0 dB, the noise is attenuated, but when |S| > 0 dB the noise is amplified by feedback. Therefore, we
should take special attention to noise disturbances in the range 1.2 < < 20 rad/s. We can also notice on the
figure that, on this frequency range, the magnitude of S is closest to the boundary /W1 .

3.2

Frequency domain assessment

The analysis of the Nichols plot of the controlled rigid launcher confirms that the closed-loop system is stable (fig.
6). Since the open-loop plant has one unstable pole, the Nichols plot has to intersect the -180 axis twice to be
stable in closed loop. We can see that this is the case for the open-loop plant with the controller, KG, as opposed
to the plant G.
LF Gain Margin
- 6.9 dB @ 1 rad/s

HF Gain Margin
12.6 dB @ 10 rad/s

Phase Margin
31 @ 2.9 rad/s

Delay
0.19 s

The gain and phase margins, shown on the table above, measure the robustness of the system. The gain margin
represents the factor by which KG can increase before becoming unstable. This factor accounts for uncertainties
in the model. Since the model is never going to be completely accurate, it is necessary to account for a significant
gain margin. In the same fashion, the phase margin represents how much lag you can add before the closed loop
becomes unstable. The delay is particularly important for the discretization of the controller: in general, we require
> 2Ts , where Ts is the sampling period.

3.3

Time domain simulation

Figure 7 shows the time domain simulation of the controlled system. In the simulation we have added a noisy
measurement of , to account for the sensor noise. As we can see, the launcher is stable and doesnt diverge, even
in the case of strong wind gusts.

Figure 7: Time domain simulation, under an offset deflection (left) and wind gusts (right).

Nominal
k2 /2
2k2
4a2 , k2 /4
a2 /2, 2k2
k3 /2
2k3

1.09
0.92
1.51
1.02
1.2
1.05
1.21

HF G [dB,
103 rad/s]
4.2
- 6.2
4.7
16
- 5.8
2.74
6.73

Frequency Analysis
LF GM
HF GM
[dB]
[dB]
- 6.9
12.6
- 7.53
9.82
- 6.0
13.5
- 7.25
15.8
- 6.48
10.1
- 6.94
12.8
- 6.94
12.1

PM
[]
31.3
32.4
28.5
33.7
28.5
32.2
29.6

Delay
[s]
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.20
0.17

Time Domain Analysis

max
AoAmax
Cmax
zmax
[]
[]
[]
[m/s]
- 0.87
- 5.01
156
35.16
- 0.75
- 5.02
187
35.08
- 1.1
- 5.22
113
35.32
- 0.83
- 5.05
194
35.13
- 0.98
- 5.15
114
35.2
- 1.03
- 5.16
148
35.36
- 0.70
- 4.99
175
34.98

Table 1: Summary of the performance and robustness parameters of the different controllers. The simulation is
performed from t = 0 to t = 100 s, with zero guidance input, no thrust deflection offset, and a wind gradient and
gust profile. In all the cases, the maximum thrust deflection was max ' 4.

Controller Settings

In this section we explore the effect of the weight functions on the synthesized controller. We focus the study on
the W2 and W3 filters. In the following, we will consider one parameter at a time, and see how it changes the
performance of the controller. In each case, we first motivate, in a theoretical point of view, the expected effects,
and then check the simulation results. A summary of the simulation results is found in table 1.

4.1
4.1.1

H rigid motion controller - Sensitivity study

Study of W2 - Gain k2

Lets focus on the function T , which sets the bandwidth of the controller, 3dB . If we increase the gain k2 , the
magnitude of 1/W2 W3 will decrease, pushing down the transfer function T . As a consequence, the bandwidth
will decrease (i.e. the function T crosses the -3 dB point before). We expect a system that will respond slower
to the perturbations. At the same time, it will increase the gain margin, i.e. the system will be more robust to
uncertainties. In terms of fluid consumption, the value of C will be smaller: the gain of the controller will be
smaller.
Figure 8 shows that our predictions are correct. When k2 increases, the gain of the controller at low frequencies
decreases, but it increases at high frequencies. We can see that the HF gain margin is higher, and that the T

function is pushed down. Looking at the synthesis table (table 1), we can see that for 2k2 the fluid consumption is
much lower than in the nominal case. However, the maximum attitude and angle of attack are bigger, because the
system doesnt react as fast to the external disturbances.
4.1.2

Study of W2 - Pulsation a2 and b2

Now, lets consider the case when a2 > b2 . In this case, the filter 1/W2 will behave like a high-pass filter. As a
consequence, the maximum value of KS, at high frequencies, will increase. As a consequence, the bandwidth of
the controller will increase, and it will react much faster to the disturbances. We also expect the gain margins to
increase (remember that the value of KS at high frequencies is related to the robustness, the higher the better).
As we can see in figures 9 and 10, the function W2 strongly affects the gain at high frequencies. When a2 > b2 ,
the gain increases when > 20 rad/s, with respect to the nominal case. We can see significant changes in the
transfer function for KS, which mimic the behavior of the controller gain. The synthesis table shows clearly the
situation: when a2 > b2 the gain margins increase. rHowever, the value of C is excessive (194, compared to the
nominal value of 156). This is the consequence of increasing the bandwidth of the controller.
In the case a2 < b2 , the filter 1/W2 will be low-pass. As opposed to the previous case, it will reduce the gain of
SK at high frequencies. We can verify these results in figures 9 and 10. The bandwidth of the controller is smaller,
which translates into a lower consumption controller (i.e. the value of C is much lower). However, the controller
is less robust: the gain margins decrease.
4.1.3

Study of W3

Finally, we study the effects of k3 . The function SG is bounded by 1/W1 W3 . This function relates the low frequency
disturbances and the command tracking. If we increase k3 , the value of SG will decrease. As a result, we should
have a better tracking, that is, the system would be less sensitive to the wind gradient, which is of low frequency.
If we take a look to the synthesis table, we can see that the filter with 2k3 produces a controller with the best
performance values, in terms of wind rejection: it has the smallest value of max , AoAmax , and z .

4.2

H Controller Settings

As a conclusion to our study of the H synthesis, we will try to find a controller that satisfies the following
requirements,
1. Frequency domain: LF gain margin greater than 5 dB, HF gain margin greater than 9 dB, phase margin
greater than 25.
2. Time domain: angle of attack smaller than 5, and deflection integral smaller than 150.
If we look back to table 1, we can guess that the best compromise will be met by a combination of a2 /2, 2k2 , and
2k3 . The first controller has a very low deflection integral and good margins, but the maximum angle of attack is
too large. By contrast, the latter is the most effective to reduce the maximum AoA, but the value of C is too high.
We have first tried a combination of both filters. The results were closer to the performance objectives, but
the angle of attack was still too high. To reduce it, we have increased k3 , up to 3k3 . This controller meets all the
performance requirements, and the performance in the frequency and time domain are shown in figure 12.
k1
0.33

Nominal

1.45

HF G [dB,
103 rad/s]
10.3

a1
3.14

b1
0.0628

k2
0.16

Frequency Analysis
LF GM
HF GM PM
[dB]
[dB]
[]
- 6.66
10
26.3

a2
11

b2
22
Delay
[s]
0.15

k3
2.1
Time Domain Analysis
max
AoAmax
Cmax
zmax
[]
[]
[]
[m/s]
- 0.652
- 4.98
144
34.9

GS vs /W1W3
20
0
20
40

GS, k2/2

Magnitude (dB)

/W1W3, k2/2
60
80

GS, 2k2
/W1W3, 2k2

100
120
140
160
180
3
10

10

10

10
Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 8: Frequency domain behavior of the controller, for different values of k2 .

10

10

10

Figure 9: Frequency domain performance of the controller, when a2 > b2 (left), and when a2 < b2 (right).

10

Figure 10: (Continued) Frequency domain performance of the controller, when a2 > b2 (left), and when a2 < b2
(right).

11

Figure 11: Frequency domain response of the controller, under different k3 values.

12

Nichols plot of the controlled rigid launcher

Controller Bode plot

30

a /2
2

6 dB
25

OpenLoop Gain (dB)

20

Magnitude (dB)

15

10

10

15

10
3
10

10

10

10
10
Frequency (rad/s)

10

10

185

10

0
5

20

40

60

80

Att (deg)

Defl (deg)

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

0
0.5
1

100
Att rate (deg/s)

Defl rate (deg/s)

20

40

60

80

100

2
1
0
1
40

Drift (m/s)

150
C (deg)

0.5

10

100
50
0

155

0
20

100

10

160

20

175
170
165
OpenLoop Phase (deg)

40
Wind (m/s)

AoA (deg)

180

20

40

60

80

20
0
20

100

t (s)

t (s)

Figure 12: Characteristics of the synthesized controller. This controller complies with all the specified performance
requirements.

13